alinciortea

thank you!

c&c welcomed! thanks!

c&c welcomed! thank you!

c&c welcomed! thank you! :)

indeed. unfortunately you can see neither how many of those ratings were given through the rate photos system versus given directly (most given directly), nor the images rated and take my word for it, those were images i'd have rated 1 without blinking but it seems nobody rates 1 and 2 and i assumed those rates were for even worse images (if there can be worse).

i am not arrogant, nor a person unaware of it's level (probably lower than my average rates although i've realized a long time ago that the PN system (and most rating systems in general) is a week value marker)

best regards!

i do? where?

c&c welcomed! please don't rate it 3 without an explanation

Tom, it was an ilford hp5 400, expired 8 years ago (probably the grain is a bit high due to the age of the film) - I just noticed there were two films mentioned. I've edited the entry.

Thank you, Lennart! I don't care that much about ratings as most of my images are not really cut for photo.net :)

c&c welcomed! please don't rate it 3 without an explanation

c&c welcomed! please don't rate it 3 without an explanation

c&c welcomed! please don't rate it 3 without an explanation

no digital manipulation! c&c welcomed! please don't rate it 3 without

an explanation

[ please leave a comment if you rate it 3! thank you! ]

[ please leave a comment if you rate it 3! thank you! ]

the entire series here ->http://the35mmstudio.blogspot.com/2007/06/ife-shades.html

all of us (involved in this discussion) are using dSLRs, right? from this point onwards blaming the hardware for most photo situations is nothing more than a lame excuse (in my opinion). i'm using a 300D, bought second-hand a year ago when I took up photography. as for lenses I have to rely on the trusted 18-55 kit lens - used for this one, for example ->

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5914873

the 50/1.8 (good optics inspite of its cheap plastic look and price tag) and a tamron 28-200 f4-5.6 (awfully slow and inprecise even in good light, very soft) that I rarely use, only when I really need those 200mm - used for this one ->

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5955664

my whole gear costed less then 700$ when I bought it. most PN members and even people I know use better equipment (much better) but this is not, nor will it ever be an excuse for me (true though, some situations and photo genres require certain cameras and lenses, but for what I shoot my gear should do). I'm still my own limit and that's probably why I always push my standards higher and higher as I go.

still, I enjoy more and more shooting on film and lately I only use digital for exposure tests and experiments. my film 'setup' was less then 100$ (old Pentax ME Super bought from ebay a couple of months ago, with a Tokina 80-200/4 zoom and a 50/1.8 prime lens). photography certainly is mostly about the feeling you take from taking the picture, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse for any bad photo. at least not in my case. I try real hard to reach the level where all my shutter releases are 'photography', not just picture taking, even if I take a photo of my friends drinking beer or even the dog taking a p**s :)

don't take this as a critique of some kind. I was just trying to explain the way I understand photography. if I wasn't making too much sense it's because it's very late here and I'm extremely tired.

indeed, i might have taken this whole rating issue a bit too far. unfortunately, friends rating friends 7 while rating the competition 3 is a fact on PN. if this is NOT the case then I sincerely apologize!

i have nothing against nichole but seeing true art, by all photography standards, being 'overrun' by all sort of snapshots, 'professional' editing etc is at very least frustrating. more than that, such images having good ratings is a bad example for many PN members who will 'adjust' their style in order to better fit the community tastes. i've seen it happen so i'm not just making wild suppositions. evolving is much related to competition as well. unfortunately, fair play is often as obsolete as chivalry. i'd rather only admire and learn from great photos until i reach such level than be "the best" among newbie experimenting or by means of 'sabotage'. indeed, in the land of the blind the one-eye man is king!

nichole, i apologize again! i can further explain the things i didn't like about your photo if you want from both subjective and objective points of view.

'us who struggle to find our way and develop our skills' you say... if you really want to develop your skills, the first step is to study top photographers, photography tehniques and concepts.

do you want to learn nudes? google bruno bisang

do you want to learn photo journalism? google james nachtwey or sacha dean biyan

do you want to learn nature and landscapes? google ansel adams

do you want to learn street photography? google bresson or doisneau

do you want to learn portraits? google philipe halsman

and the list can go on. there are many great photos here as well. you only have to take your time and browse the all-time top photos. (here's one http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6063803 )

do you really want to improve? study their images over and over and try to understand what makes them valuable. learn to use your camera for more than just out-of-focus, partially desaturated snapshots! learn to be your first critiquer and learn to aim ever higher!

do all these instead of using my so-called arrogance as a shield and, maybe, you will improve!

one more thing: high rates and honey-sweet comments for poor photos are NOT that helpful!

(almost) perfect simmetry. it took me some time to realize it actually isn't a middle-flipped image. very nice way of suggesting nudity while only using blacks and whites. this certainly is way above the (ever dropping) average nude on PN.

a friend in need's a friend indeed. and with good friends even the cheap shots can reach the first pages of top photos.

my rating does not address the technical side of this... pic (the light is ok, although rather dull) but the aesthetical one. your visual culture is somwhere on the ground if you consider this to be a good image that can stirr emotions inside the viewers' mind and heart. except for the naked body (that generally attracts) there is nothing pleasant to the eye about this image. the facial expression is totally uninspired and the images overlay is kitsch, not art.

as for originality, placing her face as a background is anything but original.

i'm tired of seeing good images sinking and drowning in an ocean of cheap snapshots. and i'm not the only one, as more and more good photographers are leaving PN for more serious alternatives.

if you really want to showcase your 'works of art', please do on your personal blogs and stop rating good photos with 3s so that your own 'no-words-to-describe' pics can reach top pages. (this last paragraph is meant for a whole category of PN members)

i've rated this image 7/7 because i'm very much against the anonymous rating system right now and i will support anyone willing to stand up. i will also take action these days (i've tried smth yesterday but it's not quite right yet). my wish now is that all first ten most rated images in top photos are manifests agains the anonymous system and the 3/3 'experts'.

[ please leave a comment if you rate this photo with a 3. thank you! ]

all comments and suggestions are helpful. please leave a comment if

you rate this photo with a 3. thank you!

to Grant Baird:

when I named it 'exhaust' I had a simple association between the gas mask and the car's exhaust gases in mind. of course, this was my point of view and I don't want to force it in the viewers' imagination. everybody is free to see it as he/she feels like.

thanks for the comment!

photomanipulation by alexMatusciac

the way the neck looks (very long) due to the chosen angle and focal lenght is a bit disturbing. the fold on her lower back is also something I usually try to hide.

I've only mentioned the things I didn't like!

best regards!

alinCiortea